sculpture enlargement process
Michael Raphael
understand that a pantagraph is commonly used to scale points from the model
to the enlargement. What other techniques to do sculptors use? How
important is accuracy and detail for these conversions? I also understand
that often the dimensional proportions may need to change for enlargements,
how and why?
Michael Raphael
Direct Dimensions, Inc.
rapid solutions to 3D problems...
8C Music Fair Road
Owings Mills, MD 21117
410-998-0880 ph
410-998-0887 fx
in...@dirdim.com
www.dirdim.com
Andrew Werby
[Are you interested in the old-fashioned hand processes or the new digital
ones? Pantographs are used on flattish reliefs. They are basically an
articulated arm linked so as to proportionately exaggerate a movement at one
end, where one traces the model with a stylus, to the other end which is
fitted with a carving tool. For large freestanding models, a pointing box or
machine is the traditional method. Here's a link to the FAQ article
Christopher Pardell has kindly contributed on this subject:
http://users.lmi.net/~drewid/pointing_faq.html . He explains the traditional
method at some length, and mentions the new computer techniques at the end.
I notice from your site that you are involved with these to some extent, but
unfortunately none of the links seemed to work, so it's hard to tell what
exactly you're up to.
As for accuracy and detail, these are good things- more is better. I'm not
sure what you mean by changing proportions- are you talking about
perspective-correction or what?]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
Gary Waller
other body parts in these newsgroups. If you want to learn, start on how
they did it for thousands of years, using calipers, plum bobs and sights -
the best book I have seen is called something like "The Art of Stoneworking"
by Oxford University Press. It is basically an academic Archeology book
which explains how the works were constructed, and therefore how they may be
dated. Before this book I was entranced with digital techniques, especially
autocad running 3d foam carving machines. As I became more experienced, I
saw that even the foam companies found it easier to work by hand and paper
templates (and calipers and plum bobs) for the tricky (ie 3d contour) stuff
as do most of the automated stone carvers. Then, as I worked with some true
master carvers, seeing how they could work entirely by sight, from a
maquette or drawing, I am convinced this is an acquired skill, further
enhanced by natural ability. Now most of what I am referring to is building
sculpture on the monumental scale. For serious fine art sculpture, they
cannot even agree on the proportions of the human body - for example Da
Vinci's famous graphic of the proportioned man is incorrect - the base line
is 1/4 head too low. Here look at this website to see what you unwittingly
are getting into http://www.mauigateway.com/~donjusko/human.htm. The artist
Don Jusko says that Michaelangelo's David is rightly proportioned. Which
brings me to the second part of your question and the first line of my
post - the proportions can be radically different according to the scale of
the work - for example I have noticed in the widely copied David there is a
great variance in the - ahem - penis area. I can vary from the censor's fig
leaf, to all sorts of proportions different from the original - basically
the smaller the statue, the larger the area in question. Also the
nationality of the reproducer is a factor, Italian reproductions of Italian
pieces are very generous. Italian reproductions of well known Greek pieces,
were less than generous. Anyways, you have enough material to start your
thesis now.
"Michael Raphael" <in...@dirdim.com> wrote in message
news:Vyv09.312623$Bt1.15...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Gary Waller
Cambridge University Press. This is one of Norman Rockwell's sons and is an
accomplished sculptor. He speaks/writes Italian, and much of the book is how
Roman sculptures were created, especially the Trajan Column. It is a great
book but beastly difficult to find, in good quality, used, at a fair price.
I am lucky my library has it, so I take it out once in a while. A rare,
insiders glimpse to stone sculpting on the monumental scale, with techniques
which are just as valid today. Four thumbs up rating.
Sculptingman
> that often the dimensional proportions may need to change for enlargements,
> how and why?
>
The only circumstances that proportions would need to be changed for
are as follows:
1--If the enlarged sculpture will only be seen from a resticted and
extreme vantage. For example- the head and upper body of
Michelangelo's David is overlarge. This was done because the original
commission was to go in the courtyard of the Palazzo Vecchio, where it
would only be seen in entirely by people standing within 15 feet of
the base, and from this distance, the head and shoulders seem
perfectly balanced for the body of a teenage boy. ( The fact that it
was so well recieved that it was displayed in Front of the Palazzo
Vecchio was something the sculptor could not plan for)
2-- if the original that is being pointed up is so small that the
viewer's eyes are wider than crucial details on the sculpture.
For example- when sculpting a figure where the head of the sculpture
is narrower in width than the eyes of the viewer, the sculptor will
unconsciously correct for this "wraparound vision" by making the back
of the head too narrow- so that the sides of the head will appear to
look normal to a viewer looking at the face. This is because the
viewer's eyes are each converging on the sculpture from either side-
allowing the viewer to see the sides of the head at an angle
impossible when looking at an actual size head.
When this same head is scaled up to a size closer to life size it will
be WIDER than the eyes of the viewer and the sides of the face will
not present a normal appearance to the eye since the distortion the
sculptor used in the maquette has been accurately enlarged to a size
where such distortion is not needed. This effect will be most
notciable in the "disappearance" of the temples, which are normally
visible from the front, and the partial occlusion of the ears.
In this kind of situation the proportions of the head will have to be
changed to make the enlargement "read" correctly. The face can be made
a little narrower and the back portion of the head considerably wider.
Other than this- I refer you to the FAQ mentioned by Andrew- it fairly
well covers the principal traditional techniques.
Also- a search of this newsgroup for "3D", "scanning" or "pointing"
will yield a lot of discussions regarding most methods of sculptural
enlargement.
Christopher
Michael Raphael
comments. We are providing 3D digital imaging and sculpture enlargement
services and equipment for those interested. As we come from very much an
industrial and manufacturing background as engineers, I feel it important to
at least appreciate the "hard long ways," you know - like long division by
hand before calculators or using a slide rule! Actually I pull out my
slide rule from time to time to appreciate calculators... Sounds like the
manual pantograph and plumb bob approach is the "slide rule" of sculpture
enlargement, which I hope to help religate to the museum...
We had some problems with our website graphics, but all better now. Since
interested, we are a group of engineers that specialize in 3D measurement
and the processing of 3D data into accurate computer models for various
reasons and uses. As noted, most of our work is manufacturing-related for
quality control and inspection purposes, and also for what's commonly known
as "reverse engineering." In the past year or so we've been applying our
skills and equipment to art, sculpture, and architecture including
replicating busts, maquettes, large artistic sculpture, and even a large
portion of the Lincoln Memorial - we have Abe in 3D in our computer! (We
did the Lincoln as technology demonstration for folks in DC - kinda "what
if..."). Last month we scanned a portion of George Washington's sister's
house in Virginia where she had unique plaster artistic architectural
features on the walls and ceilings. Again this is a
preservation/conservation project and a method for documenting and
recreating if something catastrophic occured.
If anybody is further interested, our website (assuming its working okay)
contains a "portfolio" section with numerous case studies and graphics
outlining these and many more examples of our capabilities. Please visit.
Comments, discussion, thoughts, and potential projects are welcome for
discussion and thoroughly encouraged as we figure out different applications
for this emerging technology. www.directdimensions.com or www.dirdim.com.
Regards,
Michael Raphael
Direct Dimensions, Inc.
rapid solutions to 3D problems...
8C Music Fair Road
Owings Mills, MD 21117
410-998-0880 ph
410-998-0887 fx
in...@dirdim.com
www.dirdim.com
"Michael Raphael" <in...@dirdim.com> wrote in message
news:Vyv09.312623$Bt1.15...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Gary Waller
> Thanks for the replies and info - excellent references, discussions, and
> comments. We are providing 3D digital imaging and sculpture enlargement
> services and equipment for those interested. As we come from very much an
> industrial and manufacturing background as engineers, I feel it important
to
> at least appreciate the "hard long ways," you know - like long division by
> hand before calculators or using a slide rule! Actually I pull out my
> slide rule from time to time to appreciate calculators... Sounds like the
> manual pantograph and plumb bob approach is the "slide rule" of sculpture
> enlargement, which I hope to help religate to the museum...
I'm sorry but you are completely wrong on this point. Digital imaging and
CNC milling are throwing an expensive, technical solution at a problem which
rarely exists in architectural sculpture, theming and fine art sculpture.The
local large scale architectural modellers abandoned this approach in the
early 1990's, the Hollywood movie sculptors abandoned it in the late 80's
(on Mac based systems no less), except for special effect work, Disney
abandoned it in the 80's for all its theming work, but apparently still has
3d laser carver they show off once and a while. There are a few companies
which advertise this capability, and a few exceptions which the media leaps
upon, but the great bulk of this work, and the LOW BID, will be always be
won by a team of highly skilled sculptors/plasterers/stone carvers working
by eye, by caliper, by plumb bob, by hand drawn paper templates, by screeded
plaster/clay, by steel blades. I would not say that the 'human eye, does not
lie' in fact it is just the opposite - a sculptured piece often contains
many mechanical 'imperfections' but this is what our aesthetics seem to
enjoy. It takes a human eye to see what a human eye will enjoy, and the hand
is the instrument of the eye. Of course, a pully assembly for a lawn mower
is a whole different category of work.
> We had some problems with our website graphics, but all better now.
No they are not, I could not link up to any of the photos you mention.
Besides the obvious irony, this sums up the problem with this approach -
COMPUTERS SIMPLY DO NOT WORK. We are asking them to function at a level
which they are physically incapable of. I have a fairly state of the art
system, and latest operating system - and it still crashes, freezes, screws
up on a weekly basis - the same as my first computer in 1983. Back when we
naively believed that "computers don't make mistakes, people do". A
mechanical engineer tried to explain to me one time that electricity flows
like a a wild flowing river, the pipes and circuits we are designing to
control them cannot handle the "air bubbles", "back eddies" and all sorts of
natural anomolies. So we design our circuits and code our software to a
reality which does not exist and can never exist until some better way is
found to control this electron flow. This is well documented and best
phrased by those active in explorations of quantum theory and the mechanical
universe.
I know I can count on a well trained crew of humanoids to get the job done,
on time, on budget. I have been let down way too many times by a computer
which does not work as is it supposed to, waiting for customer support which
is always a disappointment, and then the many long, long hours sorting out
the problem. Computer based systems are born as a solution looking for a
problem, and then end up becoming the problem themselves. Today's "emerging
technology" often becomes next year's theremin. There are some interesting
toys in the pipeline - I think low cost 3d imaging cameras are on the
horizon - but there is no subsitute for a solid background in the basic
skills and techniques - these must be preserved and explored first.
Michael Raphael
digitial enlargement process don't agree with it being "completely wrong!"
I'm guessing as a sculptor you are hoping to preserve the "artistic" aspect
of the enlargement process, or maybe your livelihood. The fact is our
process is very competitive to manual techniques and provides significantly
higher accuracy results - for those that care about that. If the last time
your looked at this process was in the late 80's or even 90's, then you owe
it to yourself to take another look. Major improvements in both laser
scanning equipment and software for processing the data have been made only
in the past year. We're scanning detailed human-figure sculptured maquettes
(3-ft range) and collecting over 100 million high accuracy 3D datapoints.
Computers powerful enough for data sets this large are only recently
available. We then use several very high powered and very new software
programs for processing this data. In the end we produce a triangulated
(faceted) mesh with resolution better than 1/2 mm where required for
maintaining contour. These files are then sent to a 5-axis mill for close
tolerance machining of high density foam.
What should be noted is that this process results in an enlarged pattern
that generally STILL requires work by a sculptor. The resolution of the
final machined foam depends on factors such as cutter diameter, NC software
programming capabilities, machine time availability, fixturing, foam
material properties and shrinkage factors, etc. We've had some projects
that have gone virtually directly from the mill to the foundry and many
others (usually those highly organic types) that require either the original
sculptor or another artist to manually sculpt the foam as needed to add back
in the very high resolution detail. Examples are fingerprints and wrinkles
that are of finer resolution than capable by our process (so far!).
Basically we get the piece 95 to 98% of the way there very quickly.
I would hardly call this process "wrong" simply because if involves a
computer. It still takes someone to operate the scanners and the software,
and we actually think there is some "art" to our process too. Good thing I
have a "well trained group of humaniods" as you say "that I can count on to
get the job done."
And I rechecked my website and it is and was working fine. I'd really
appreciate it if you can try again. You need to click on the red buttons on
the "portfolio" matrix to bring up the preview window then hit the enlarge
button to see the graphics. It's not obvious so we added instructions.
Michael
"Gary Waller" <ga...@mozaya.com> wrote in message
news:ARe39.93287$v53.4...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
Gary Waller
"> Man Gary - did I strike a nerve or what?! Good thing my customers for
our
> digitial enlargement process don't agree with it being "completely wrong!"
> I'm guessing as a sculptor you are hoping to preserve the "artistic"
aspect
> of the enlargement process, or maybe your livelihood. The fact is our
> process is very competitive to manual techniques and provides
significantly
> higher accuracy results - for those that care about that
Don't worry about me, content providers always rule, service providers fight
over the scraps. The only industry I can think of where that is not true is
farming.
The enlargement part of the architectural sculpture, theming sculpture, or
fine art sculpture is only a small part of the chain of work that has to be
done. Those who do manual enlargement work would more likely consider
themselves craftpersons or artisans - not artists. The person who operates
your scanner and cnc machines would probably consider themselves a
technician. Unless you can offer a full service, like
http://www.keysler.com, ending up with finished parts/castings, I would
think most customers would not see the need for subcontracting the making of
the full scale model by whatever means. Again, another touch of irony on the
Keysler site is that the architectural details they provide for composites
are all drafted by hand - they do not appear to be using CAD. In fact I know
of very few successful 'content providers' (production designers, art
directors, interior designers, architects, commerical sculptors, fine art
sculptors, architectural sculptors) who actually design their work on the
computer.
. If the last time
> your looked at this process was in the late 80's or even 90's, then you
owe
> it to yourself to take another look. Major improvements in both laser
> scanning equipment and software for processing the data have been made
only
> in the past year. We're scanning detailed human-figure sculptured
maquettes
> (3-ft range) and collecting over 100 million high accuracy 3D datapoints.
> Computers powerful enough for data sets this large are only recently
> available. We then use several very high powered and very new software
> programs for processing this data. In the end we produce a triangulated
> (faceted) mesh with resolution better than 1/2 mm where required for
> maintaining contour. These files are then sent to a 5-axis mill for close
> tolerance machining of high density foam.
>
Again the new computer, new software argument I have been hearing since
1983. I wish I had a 1980 Kaypro, z-80 chip, running cp/m for word
processing and spread sheets - this is the only stable platform I know
about - you don't have to worry about distractions like colors, fonts,
crashes, etc, you just get in there and do your work. If you have managed to
find a stable, bug free computer device my hats off to you - my argument
remains the same - it defies the laws of physics. The problem is the that
laws of marketing always claim superiority over the laws of physics.
You write so confidently of things like measurement - explore the world of
quantum theory and you will be amazed how little we really do know about
anything. Einstein's theory of relativity is now universally accepted as
being wrong. There is something faster than the speed of light but they
don't know what it is yet. In quantum theory nothing is capable of being
measured, by the time you get a number it is wrong. These are not crackpot
theories, but subjects of debate among extremely educated, extremely
influentual people.We are in the midst of a fundamental shift in the way we
view the world. An excellent book is 'Nature loves to Hide' by Shimon Malin,
if you want to understand a little more of my perspective and this new
emerging view of the world.
> What should be noted is that this process results in an enlarged pattern
> that generally STILL requires work by a sculptor. The resolution of the
> final machined foam depends on factors such as cutter diameter, NC
software
> programming capabilities, machine time availability, fixturing, foam
> material properties and shrinkage factors, etc. We've had some projects
> that have gone virtually directly from the mill to the foundry and many
> others (usually those highly organic types) that require either the
original
> sculptor or another artist to manually sculpt the foam as needed to add
back
> in the very high resolution detail. Examples are fingerprints and
wrinkles
> that are of finer resolution than capable by our process (so far!).
> Basically we get the piece 95 to 98% of the way there very quickly
Christopher has pointed out a fairly stiff set of rules as to how and when
proportions should be changed - and these are the views of a classically
trained artisan or craftsperson (although Chris can be an artist too, with
an entirely different set of "rules"). In fact, proportions change quite a
bit from the small scale to the large, minor resculpting is the norm. No one
knows more about this than a graphic designer - company logos can vary a lot
from the one on a business card to one on a billboard. If you took a logo
from a business card and digitally blew it up to poster size, it would not
look right. I bring up this example because when digital technology took
over the graphic arts in the 1980's, there were a great many people who
really thought it was as easy as pushing the zoom button, and there was a
great deal of bad graphic design. In the 1990's, many of the old school
principles and techniques were re-introduced, and a today's alliance is the
result. Perhaps this will happen in the fine art sculpture with digital
enlargement. In architectural, movie and theming sculpture, we generally get
a hand drawn concept and get to work- on a budget always too low and a
schedule always too tight - maquettes are very rarely used- its just as easy
to make one (or many) in the size the customer wants.
> And I rechecked my website and it is and was working fine. I'd really
> appreciate it if you can try again. You need to click on the red buttons
on
> the "portfolio" matrix to bring up the preview window then hit the enlarge
> button to see the graphics. It's not obvious so we added instructions.
>
I went back to the website, and as before, every red button pushed generates
an 'error on page' sub message. I am running Explorer 6, maybe theres an
option or plugin I am missing. I'll try again some day.
Good luck with your company. Check out quantum - it is a humbling
experience.
Gary Waller
got to stop correcting my posts
Malin book, published Oxford University Press 2001
isbn 0-19-513894-5
Sculptingman
I gotta say that you are way off on this issue...
Every year I see more and more industries and artists turning to
digital solutions to problems once addressed thru traditional
craftsmanship.
Film studios in general- toy companies- and manufacturers of all
types are using digital modeling and digital scaling in ever
increasing amounts- From action figures to bobbleheads to huge
fiberglass cartoon characters, I see more and more done digitally
every year.
I would say that the big turning point was in 1999, when the
resolution of 3 dimensional printing devices finally caught up with
the resolution possible on screen.- Today, I can print an object, at
any size from a finely filigreed ring pattern to monumental, in
virtually any material I need, from fused steel to rubber. It will
only be perhaps 10 years at most before the entire Automotive industry
will abandon clay for digital direct to tool modeling- already- the
clay prototypes are being cut by cnc machines driven by a virtual
model.
With the advent of Freeform- a haptic virtual sculpting program-the
final obstacle to user friendly virtual modeling has been overcome.
You needn't be an engineer or software wiz to run Freeform- any
competent sculptor can pick up the stylus and get immediately useful
results because it accurately takes advantage of the sculpting skill
you already have- and adds a suite a capabilities that are nearly
impossible to achieve thru traditional techniques.
And as to your problems with computers- you are certainly not running
the state of the art machines if you are having the trouble you
describe.
I have run Freeform under windows 2000 pro for literally hundreds of
hours and NEVER had it crash on me. Not once. This is more a testament
to the software developers at SensAble than Microsoft.
And while computers in general are likely to crash once in a while, so
what, you simply reboot and carry on. (frequenty saving IS important)
As a person who was trained traditionally and still values and uses
traditional techniques, I can tell you that dropping a set of calipers
with a crucial measurement from the top of a scaffold, or snapping a
bit on a drill, or cracking a supposedly fresh bag of plaster to find
that it is perished are just as irksome and time consuming as any
computer glitch.
The key to working with software is to find the best, most stable
software available and run it on the most stable platform. IBM
workstations are far and away more stable than any clone- and windows
2000 and better are more stable than any previous microsoft product.
And if you want real stability and ease of use- the newer macs,
running a unix-based system X.2 are a dream of stability and user
friendliness.
And the cost of digital pointing is not nearly as expensive as you
imagine.
With my time as valuable as it now is, I would not dream of pointing
up a maquette with any significant detailing or complexity to a life
size using traditional techniques. It would be too time consuming and
materials intensive. I find that,in most cases, outsourcing the
scanning and cutting of the point up to be less costly than doing it
myself the old fashioned way.
Part of this problem is due to the dearth of properly trained
traditional craftsmen. Good luck finding a plaster contracter here in
the states who can do fine art quality screeding, much less
ornamentation. And trained sculptors are particularly scarce, and
flakey.
The movie industry typically flies to England ( or Vancouver) when
they need plaster work done well- because those skill have been lost
here. Here the best you'll get is plaster troweled thinly over wirecut
polystyrene foam.
If I could hang onto just one talented and capable worker who WANTS to
learn traditional technique, perhaps it would be cheaper to do it the
old way. But. here in the U.S.- where art school produces self
indulgent egotists, the more talented the artist, the less willing
they are to work for a living and the less interested they are in
learning anything they didn't learn in school.
At Johnson Atilelier in New Jersey- or even at Carrera in Italy- they
are using machines to point up small maquettes into marble.
The only difference between this technique and traditional technique
is one of accuracy. In digital pointing you are merely automating the
traditional method of pointing.
In traditional pointing I can realistically translate perhaps a few
hundred to a thousand points from the maquette to full size.
Using a scanner and CNC foam cutter I am simply increasing the number
of translated points from maybe a thousand to 500,000 or more. And
doing so in perhaps one tenth of the time required to do it manually.
This is no different than using an electric drill press to make a hole
rather than a brace and bit. The electric drill is simply faster and
more accurate.
The digitally pointed up model is faithful to my original scale model
to a astonishing degree. Capturing nearly every nuance of the original
model.
AND- beacuse the point up is usually in foam- I can very quickly and
easily rework the surface, make corrections or modifications, and
achieve the final "gesture" I want in the sculpture by hand.
All in all, I have to say that digital scanning and scaling, whether
making something big, small or vice versa, is often faster, better,
and more affordable than hiring a crew of guys who will make mistakes,
charge too much for their time, maybe injure themselves and file a
claim, and often, prove to be unqualified to do the work.
Understand, Gary, that I highly value and actively perpetuate the
traditional techniques of sculpture, but, just as I use vacuumed
silicone instead of brushed on latex for my molds, I am willing to
adopt any new technology that makes my time more efficient and my
results more accurate.
Digital modeling and scanning are just another, very powerful set of
tools that are now available to the artist and craftsman. Like any
tool, you should use them only when it will improve the product of
your labor, or improve your productivity.
Christopher
Gary Waller
the technical issues you bring up. I think I am trying to bring focus on the
point that a sculptured work suffers from the pointing up process, whether
manual or digital, but that in digital enlargement this effect is worsened.
A few years ago I would say that each size of a sculpture has its own unique
set of "aesthetics" or personality, but I now know that this a very clear
example of quantum physics principles.
Lets take the Lincoln Memorial as an example. At 6 inches high it looks like
an old man sitting in a rocking chair - put a stovetop hat on it - and
everyone recognizes it as Lincoln - an amusing novelty or souvenir - it
could never be more. At 4 foot high, with a bit of softening, it is a
charming piece, friendly sedate - nice to have in a garden somewhere. At 12
feet high it begins to become noticeable - there is a certain something
about it, if you enlarged the head, but it looks like any other public park
statue. At 30 feet tall (appr?) it has changed again, it is instantly
recognised as a great man, with a stern, questioning gaze to the onlookers
at the base. It is awesome and inspiring. It seems to say"I did a lot to
build this country, what have you done to keep it up". This effect was
obtained by a sculptor who was able to take in the scale of the piece, the
lighting, etc, and worked on the piece until the magic moment where the
sculpture revealed itself (in quantum theory this is called a quantum
collapse*). This magic moment is the difference between mediocrity and
brilliance and is different at every scale. I have not done the research but
I am sure the sculptor did a lot of full scale carving to make this piece
happen. If I were a fine artist, I would be very careful when enlarging a
piece - like patina, it involves a very close working relationship with
those doing the work and an appreciation of where the work has to go - one
reason why limited editions are doomed to mediocrity. This is simple and
non-controversial enough? Now I know at this is the point this where you
rebut that the lighting can be simulated on the monitor, the wire mesh can
be reworked, etc. - but this is contrary to what quantum physics tells us,
and what my common sense tells me. I also realise that making one of a kind
pieces may be a difficult financial road for a fine arts sculptor.
Now to technical issues, the Lincoln Memorial, controversy and mediocrity.
In the last scene of the latest "Planet of the Apes" films, our hero arrives
back on earth, to the Lincoln Memorial, looks up and finds that Lincoln has
become an ape. How was this constructed? In L.A., an Art Director gave the
drawings, and photos of the ape, to two OPCMIA sculptors and maybe a
helper - within a week they carved the figure out of billets of EPS foam (2
lb density) or 6 lb density urethane sprayed over an armature. The tools
they used were sky stages, electric chain saws, filet knives and maybe some
small grinders. The piece was sprayed with a thin coat of 100% solids two
part urethane coating, and the final details were sanded, filled for maybe
half a day. The piece was then painted. The total cost of 30 foot by 20 foot
finished piece, ready for taking a mold if necessary, appr. $6000 at the
current rate of $33 per hour, appr. 25cents a board foot EPS cost, about $2
a lb urethane cost ($12 cubic foot). Lets compare the cost and time using
digital enlargement. Firstly a maquette for digitizing, appr 24 inches
high - only one sculptor could do the work, not enough room to move. From
the same drawing and photos it would take at least two weeks, for a detailed
piece say in plastelina? Lets pay a union rate - so appr $4000. Now we have
to scan and cut the foam. Based on estimates on the kreysler site of $5000
for a 4 ft figure, and the $500 a foot for transportation costs, I think
$15 - 20,000 for the cutting costs would be low but about right
(30'x20'x20') allowing for materials and markups. Now we still have to carve
out the undercuts, spray a hard coat, and finish the hard coat - another
$2000?. Now if we move this set to Vancouver, or London, or Asia, our labor
costs get cut again. So guess which system the people who spend money prefer
to use? I should also mention that after the movie the piece may have been
sold cheap for someone willing to pay high shipping costs, but it was most
likely sent through a chipper and then to the landfill.
(courtesy Jay Currie -*Quantum collapse- based on the fact that stuff -
matter - has no independent existence. At the quantum level - and the world
operates entirely at the quantum level although we cannot perceive this -
stuff is actually a wave of probabilities. It stays that way until what is
called a quantum collapse occurs and the probabilities resolve into an
actuality for an instant.
There is no such thing as objective, independent reality; rather there are a
series of quantum collapses intitiated by or creating the conditions in
which, to paraphrase the late quantum physicist Paul Dirac, Nature has to
choose.
The reality of the quantum world is best approached through contemplation.
Not as a construction of the observer's senses, but rather as a shimmer a
moment's stillness may reveal. Which is what our Eastern friends have been
trying to tell us for several thousand years.)
"